If the Beatles recorded in 1980.lennon received or avoided Chapman could they of made a great album or made fools of themselves?
Of course it would’ve been great.
Now I don’t think them touring or making movies again would’ve worked, though.
I’m not sure I understand all your question there, but I think that since they never made a bad album in their time together, they probably could have made another good one.
They had all matured, both as songwriters and producers, so the 1980 version would have been better. The big difference would be that the songs would be more distinctly different - “all John” and “all Paul” compositions instead of the classic melange of Paul touches to a John song and vice versa.
Also, I think George would have demanded and gotten more of his songs on the album.
Judging from their solo outings, they had each pretty much run out of good ideas by 1973 or so. So, I am not as optimistic as other posters.
That could only be a good thing in my opinion.
How do you feel about the albums the Rolling Stones released in the '80s? Because I figure probably something like that.
Lennon & McCartney both made a lot of music (independently) around 1980. It was mostly sentimental easy-listening sellout schlock. Don’t get me wrong, I like it for what it is, but McCartney never got any better after that. I don’t think a partnership would have improved things much.
What really frustrates me is how Beatles plus Billy Preston were really a fresh and different band, and it died just as they were doing some interesting stuff. Sometimes I wonder, if John had lived to see rap really take off, would he have rediscovered his adventurous streak and done some interesting collaborations?
Well let’s see what the guys were putting out this time:
Paul, “Back to the Egg” and “McCartney II”. The first one a commercial and critical disappointment, the second did decently but isn’t exactly considered a classic.
George, “Somewhere In England”. His record company was so disappointed they had him redo much of the album. It sold well when released, but dropped off so quickly it didn’t even go gold.
Ringo’s wasn’t even putting out records then but working on acting.
So John was the only guy with a thriving career, ironically enough. Doesn’t strike me as very promising for guys who hadn’t worked together in 10 years, and weren’t exactly on the greatest terms even back then.
I respectfully disagree. By 1980, they were all around 40 years old, and were not writing or making music nearly as wonderful as when they were in their 20s. There are exceptions, of course, but I find the most compelling albums are made by musicians in their 20s.
Now, working together would have improved upon any of their solo work, but it wouldn’t have been as good as the mid to late 60s stuff.
I don’t think for a minute that they would have embarrassed themselves, but it would almost certainly have paled to what they did previously.
Regarding the other big 60s artists, I would say The Kinks were an exception. Their music around 1980 was very good, and an improvement to their mid- to late-70s stuff. But generally not the case with the Stones, the Who, Queen, etc.
If they would and could work together, which would be a surprise considering their breakup, I think they would shine.
They were pioneers in recording and music styles. I think they would have traveled to the stars and beyond.
I can imagine a Beatles/Michael Jackson collaboration that would have been so epic in its awfulness that it would be derided to this day and none of them would have been willing to even talk about it in an interview for the rest of their lives.
If they had George Martin for their producer, yes. If they went back to Phil Spector, no.
There’s a little-known reunion album that was quickly shelved in December of 1979 called The Beatles Holiday Special. Bootlegs are available.
Maybe they would have been like 1980 Bob Dylan, and embraced Jeeziz.
According to the Beatles, Jesus would have embraced them.
Out of fear, maybe. They’re bigger than he is.
My opinion: No. They were no longer a band. Isn’t a band’s average lifespan something like 7 months? They did pretty well, then. Could George Martin have assembled a listenable collection of tracks in 1980? Probably. Would the music sparkle? Probably not.
And I’ll disagree with that. They were making incredible music long into their careers compared to most bands. Also a huge factor regarding their writing is that they weren’t competing for a spot on an LP. Mr Martin was very instrumental in choosing which songs made it to an album (or not). Without that incentive (and objective opinion) of course some less than stellar tracks got recorded on individual efforts.
But recording as a band, 80s stuff would have probably been amazing.
All four Beatles were hitting serious diminishing returns by 1980. Imagine if someone else’s name, other than John Lennon, had been on Double Fantasy, note for note and word-for-word the same? Lennon had taken five tears off to raise his son, and Double Fantasy was the best he could do, far from the peaks of “Imagine” or “Whatever Gets You Through the Night.” Paul’s artistic high point of the70s was probably Band On the Run, with hooky melodies and inside jokes we were never intended to get about Helen Wheels and Sailor Sam. Ringo’s biggest solo successes for the decade were"It Don’t Come Easy" and the schmaltzy covers of Goodnight Vienna. George Harrison, infamously the slow learner of the band, probably had the best career of the four of them at that point thanks to the witty and pioneering video for “Crackerbox Palace.”
Everyone else was clamoring for a reunion, but I think their moment had passed. A comparison with the Stones, mentioned upthread, would be revealing. Quick, name 20 or 30 or 50 essential Rolling Stones songs, there are certainly that many. Now, how many of them were recorded in the 60s? The 70s? The 80s and beyond? Diminishing returns. They are essentially touring as a Rolling Stones tribute band. Rock and Roll is a young person’s game and always has been. Let’s go back out the bathroom window and let it be.